Bug 911685 (CVE-2013-0342)
Summary: | CVE-2013-0342 python-pyrad: CreateID() creates serialized packet IDs for RADIUS | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Other] Security Response | Reporter: | Vincent Danen <vdanen> |
Component: | vulnerability | Assignee: | Red Hat Product Security <security-response-team> |
Status: | CLOSED UPSTREAM | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | unspecified | CC: | lemenkov, npmccallum |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened, Security |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2019-06-10 11:00:06 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 894488, 911687 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
Vincent Danen
2013-02-15 16:12:02 UTC
Created python-pyrad tracking bugs for this issue Affects: fedora-all [bug 894488] Affects: epel-all [bug 911687] *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 911682 *** The above patch does not apply to this issue as this issue is NOT a duplicate of bug 911682. Why is that? If I look at the patch, I see the change to CreateID() on line 226/229 from using random.randrange() to random_generator.randrange(). Is that not the fix for this issue? That is the only upstream patch applied in the last year and a half. See: https://github.com/wichert/pyrad/blob/38f74b36814ca5b1a27d9898141126af4953bee5/pyrad/packet.py#L518 There are two CreateID() codepaths. One generates a random ID and the other generates a sequential ID. Neither checks for uniqueness. To be fair, this predictability is only exploitable in the presence of another security problem. So the issue is minor and it would require a major upstream API rework. I don't know if upstream will accept any patch to fix this or even consider this a bug. Bug 911682 is far more serious. I'm not sure how the CVE for this bug should be handled. Ok, I see it now. Your initial report wasn't clear enough (pointing to actual code snippets instead of function names (when there are two identical) would have helped. This is a bit messy now. We did have two CVEs assigned, and MITRE rejected one based on their assumption (and my own) of that patch correcting both flaws. I'll have to see if we can use the old one or if we need a new one again. I've requested it on oss-sec now: http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2013/02/21/27 CVE-2013-0342 was assigned to this issue: http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2013/02/22/2 This CVE Bugzilla entry is for community support informational purposes only as it does not affect a package in a commercially supported Red Hat product. Refer to the dependent bugs for status of those individual community products. |